Indemnisation West Carribean Airways (Fr) - Weissberg Law Firm

December 12, 2014 by Kenneth Weissberg Aviation, maritime, transport and logistics 0 comments

West Carribean Airways (Fr) compensation

SUMMARY

I. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CIVIL, JUDGMENT N ° 10/00341 (22/06/2012)
II. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CIVIL, JUDGMENT N ° 10/00341 (12/22/2012)
III. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CIVIL, JUDGMENT N ° 10/00643 (12/22/2012)
IV. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CIVIL, JUDGMENT N ° 10/00645 (18/01/2013)
V. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CIVIL, JUDGMENT N ° 10/00634 (19/04/2013)
VI. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CIVIL, JUDGMENT N ° 10/00667 (07/06/2013)
VII. CA PARIS PÔLE 2, CHAMBRE 2, JUDGMENT N ° 13/04044 (19/12/2014)

I. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CALENDAR STOP N ° 10/00341 (22/06/2012)

SA THE ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS INSURANCE COMPANY
THE SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS
FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERA

VS/

FORT DE FRANCE COURT OF APPEAL, CIVIL CHAMBER, JUDGMENT OF 22 JUNE 2012

Decision referred to the court: Judgment of the High Court of Fort de France, dated September 08, 2009, registered under number 08/00114.

CALLERS:

SA THE ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS INSURANCE COMPANY, taken in the person of its legal representative
Carrera 13 A - N ° 29-24 y 29-26 Piso 17
Ala Sur Santafé de Bogoà
COLOMBIA
represented by Me Alain MANVILLE, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE

SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS, Company in liquidation
Callée 2 N ° 67 Hangar 72 Medelin
COLOMBIA
represented by Me Alain MANVILLE, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE
Master FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERA, es quality of liquidating agent of the company WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS
Bogota Calle 70 A, N ° 6-24, Piso 2
COLOMBIA
represented by Me Alain MANVILLE, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE INTIMES:
Madame T. Yolande L. wife B.
45 Morne Laurent T.
C / 0 M. Omer L.
represented by Me André ELOIDIN, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE Mrs. Marie Louise Christiane L.
45 Morne Laurent T.
C / 0 M. Omer L.
represented by Me André ELOIDIN, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE Mrs Thérèse Rose d. L.
45 Morne Laurent T.
C / 0 M. Omer L.
represented by Me André ELOIDIN, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE Mrs Raymonde Fernande L. wife H.
Cité Lacroix
represented by Me André ELOIDIN, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE Mr. Honoré Cyr André L.
Habitation Bois Carré
represented by Me André ELOIDIN, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE Mr. Casimir Simplice L.
represented by Me André ELOIDIN, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE Mr. Thérèse Carnot L.
Osman Street N.
Ravine Vilaine
represented by Me André ELOIDIN, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE

COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:

The case was debated on April 27, 2012 at a public hearing, before the court composed of: Ms. TRIOL, Counselor, hearing chair
Ms SUBIETA FORONDA, Advisor
M. CHEVRIER, Advisor
who deliberated on it, the parties having been informed of the date of delivery of the judgment fixed for JUNE 22, 2012.
REGISTRAR: during the debates, Mrs. SOUNDOROM,

STOPPED: Contradictory,
Delivered publicly by making available to the court registry, the parties having been previously notified under the conditions provided for in the second paragraph of article 450 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

PRESENTATION OF THE LITIGATION:

On August 16, 2005, a plane from the Colombian company WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS, operating a flight between Panama and Martinique, crashed in the northwest of Venezuela. Ms. Lucienne C. and her daughter, Célyne L., were among the passengers on this plane.

WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS, now in liquidation, is represented by Maître Felipe NEGRET MOSQUETO, liquidator. At the material time, she was insured, for her civil liability, with the insurance company ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS.

By judgment of September 1, 2005, the High Court of Fort de France declared Mrs. Lucienne C. and Mrs. Célyne L. deceased.

By contradictory judgment of September 8, 2009, the same court gave notice to Me Felipe NEGRET MOSQUETO of his voluntary intervention, condemned the insurance company ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS to pay to Mrs. TL wife B., Mrs. Marie Louise L. wife F., Mme Thérèse L., Mme Raymonde L. wife H., M. Honoré L., M. Casimir L. and M. Thérèse Carnot L., to each, the sum of 5,000.00 euros, in respect of non-pecuniary damage of the death of their beautiful sister and that of 8,000.00 euros, in respect of the same damage due to the death of their niece, declared the judgment opposable to Me FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERA, are qualities of liquidating agent of WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS , ordered provisional execution for the whole, ordered the insurance company to pay the sum of 3,000.00 euros, in application of the provisions of article 700 of the code of civil procedure.

By declaration registered at the registry on May 31, 2010, the insurance company ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS, the WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS and Master FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERA, the qualities of the airline's liquidator, raised the appeal from this judgment in all its provisions.

This notice of appeal was served on September 29, 2010, to Ms. TL wife B., Ms. Marie Louise L. wife F., Ms. Thérèse L., Ms. Raymonde L. wife H., M. Honoré L., M Casimir L. and M. Thérèse Carnot L ..

By conclusions filed with the registry on March 31, 2011, the appellants asked the court to set aside the judgment referred, in the absence of any demonstration of specific affectionate links between the respondents and the deceased.

In the alternative, they claimed that the respondents' cross-appeal should be dismissed.

In support of their claims, they state that compensation for non-pecuniary damage is intended to compensate for the penalty for loss of a loved one, regardless of the context in which it occurs, and that there is no presumption of damage repairable morale in the case of beautiful brothers, beautiful sisters, uncles and aunts. They state that the respondents must demonstrate the specific bonds of affection binding them to the victims and that the bond of kinship or alliance is not sufficient to establish the reality of bonds of affection capable of being compensated.

With regard to the cross-appeal, they emphasize that the request for an increase in the amount allocated to each of the respondents is not justified.

By submissions filed with the registry on January 12, 2011, Mrs. TL married B., Mrs. Marie Louise L. married F., Mrs. Thérèse L., Mrs. Raymonde L. married H., M. Honoré L., M. Casimir L. and Mr. Thérèse Carnot L. asked the court to partially set aside the judgment and order the appellants to pay them, each, the sum of 10,000.00 euros, in respect of non-pecuniary damage due to the death of their beautiful sister and that of 15,000.00 euros, in respect of the same damage due to the death of their niece, in addition to their order to pay them, together, the sum of 7,000.00 euros, in application of the provisions of article 700 of the code of civil procedure.

In support of their claims, they explain that the air disaster shook all of Martinique and constituted a major air accident. They recall having justified the very strong emotional bond that existed between them and the deceased, leading the court to have found it indisputable.

the bond of kinship and affection.

The closing order was made on November 10, 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:

On compensation for non-pecuniary damage:

It is recognized that the moral prejudice of the beneficiary consists as much in the psychological and emotional shock resulting from the death of a loved one, as in the emotional and assistance losses linked to the absence of the deceased person.

As the first judges rightly pointed out, the trauma linked to the particular circumstances of the accident in its dimension of collective catastrophe cannot give rise to specific compensation but constitutes one of the components of moral prejudice, the pain being able to be all the more more vivid than the circumstances of death are painful.

In the present case, the respondents claim fair compensation with regard to their prejudice considered in all its aspects, including the mental suffering linked to the circumstances of the air crash.

They thus demonstrated both their particular pain due to the brutal and violent circumstances of the death of their parents, as well as the bonds of deep affection and proximity which united them.

In view of all the documents produced during the hearing, the court considers that the judgment referred has correctly assessed the respondents' prejudice and should receive confirmation.

On the provisions of article 700 of the code of civil procedure:

Equity justifies the condemnation of the insurance company ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS to the payment to the respondents together of the sum of 7,000.00 euros.

The same insurance company will bear the costs. FOR THESE REASONS :
Confirm the judgment undertaken in all its provisions,

Condemns the insurance company ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS to pay to Ms. TL wife B., Ms. Marie Louise L. wife F., Ms. Thérèse L., Ms. Raymonde L. wife H., Mr. Honoré L., Mr. Casimir L. and M. Thérèse Carnot L., together, the sum of 7,000.00 euros, on the basis of the provisions of article 700 of the code of civil procedure;

Orders the insurance company ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS to pay the costs.

Signed by Mrs. TRIOL, President, and Mrs. SOUNDOROM, Registrar, during the delivery, to which the minute has been postponed.

THE REGISTRAR, THE PRESIDENT,

Composition of the court: Mme TRIOL, Alain MANVILLE, Me André ELOIDIN Contested decision: TGI Fort-de-France, Fort-de-France 2009-09-08

***

II. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CIVIL, JUDGMENT N ° 10/00341 (12/22/2012)

THE ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS INSURANCE COMPANY
SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS SA
FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERO

VS/

FORT DE FRANCE COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL ROOM

Decision referred to the court: Judgment of the High Court of Fort de France, dated November 17, 2009, registered under number 09/1871

CALLERS:

THE ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS INSURANCE COMPANY, taken in its capacity as insurer of the WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS Company, taken in the person of its legal representative
Carera 13 AN ° 29-24 Piso 17 Ala Sur
Bogota fairy bogota (colombia)
represented by Me Alain MANVILLE of SELARL AMCOR JURISTE & ASSOCIES, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE

SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS SA, company in liquidation. Calle 2, n ° 87-15
Hangar 72 MEDILLIN COLOMBIA
represented by Me Alain MANVILLE of SELARL AMCOR JURISTE & ASSOCIES, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE
Master FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERO Calle 70 AN ° 6-24 Piso 2 BOGOTA COLOMBIA
represented by Me Alain MANVILLE of SELARL AMCOR JURISTE & ASSOCIES, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE

RESPONDENTS:

Mrs. R. Irma R. divorced L.
represented by Me Alberte ROTSEN MEYZINDI of SELARL MATHURIN BELIA & ROTSEN MEYZINDI, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE
Madame Ketty L. marries E. 4 cour du Moulin
represented by Alberte ROTSEN MEYZINDI of SELARL MATHURIN BELIA & ROTSEN MEYZINDI, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE

COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:

The parties were authorized to file their case on October 12, 2012 in accordance with the provisions of article 779 paragraph 3 of the code of civil procedure and informed in application of article 786-1 of the same code of the names of the magistrates brought to deliberate either :
President: Ms. DERYCKERE, Advisor
Assessor: Ms SUBIETA FORONDA, Advisor
Assessor: Ms TRIOL, Advisor

and the date of delivery of the judgment set for 14 DECEMBER 2012
Registrar: during the debates, Ms SOUNDOROM,

JUDGMENT: contradictory,

pronounced publicly, by making available to the court registry, the parties having been previously notified under the conditions provided for in the second paragraph of article 450 of the Code of Civil Procedure;

FACTS, PROCEDURE, MEANS AND CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES

- to Mrs. RR € 5,000 for the personal hereditary damage suffered by her son Johan L.,

- to Mrs. Ketty L. € 15,000 in compensation for hereditary damage suffered by her brother Johan L., and € 20,000 suffered by her father G. LAURENT.

The insurer, and Me Felipe NEGRET MOSQUERA as liquidator of SA WEST CARIBEAN AIRWAYS have

by declaration of September 30, 2010, appealed against the judgment, only of these sentences pronounced for hereditary harm.

By final conclusions dated May 23, 2012, the appellants claim that this damage could not have entered the patrimony of the deceased, passed on to the assigns since it is only hypothetical and therefore not reparable. They add that the accident having resulted in an instant death, the moral prejudice of the deceased cannot be retained. In the alternative, they point out that the damage to the estate has been assessed at a flat rate of € 20,000, but that another judgment rendered on the grounds of the disappearance of MG LAURENT retains the existence of 4 heirs, the only claimant among them therefore obtaining a sum of € 5,000, which creates a contradiction with the situation of Mrs. Ketty L. receiving € 20,000 on her side as the sole heir to the same G. LAURENT.

Under their last conclusions of February 7, 2012, the respondents, Mrs. RR and Mrs. Ketty L., ask the court to confirm the judgment in all its provisions and to award them compensation of € 3,000 under the article 700 of the code of civil procedure. On the principle of compensation for hereditary suffering suffering in this case, they argue that it is indisputable that during the course of an airplane crash, the passengers felt the imminence of their death with the feeling of panic and helplessness, and the awareness of leaving life before its end. This non-pecuniary damage being born before death, the personal right to compensation entered the patrimony of the victim and was transmitted to his heirs. With regard to the quantum, they claim that their quality of heirs is evidenced by a certificate of inheritance which has not been disputed, and that the judgment referring to 4 other heirs of MG LAURENT not having been given to them communicated, it is not opposable to them.

REASONS

On hereditary harm:

Any victim of damage has the right to obtain compensation from the person who caused it. This property right is transferable to his heirs. The reparable damage must be direct and certain, in relation to the harmful event.

In the present case, contrary to what the appellants claim, the fall of the plane is an indisputable fact, which should not have happened under normal flight circumstances. It is therefore necessary to take into account all of the circumstances of the accident, from the air stall, causing a sudden loss of altitude and depressurization of the cabin, until the final impact. Consequently, it cannot be argued that the passengers died instantly, which would not take into account the few minutes during which they were necessarily confronted with the terror of the vertigo of the fall, as well as the anxiety and then the certainty of their inexorable death, generators of at least moral suffering, which cannot be described as hypothetical.

The court considers that the court made a fair assessment of the quantum of this liquidated damage in the sum of € 20,000.

On the applicants' estate vocation:

It should be noted that the inheritance vocation and the respective share of Mrs. R. and Mrs. L. in respect of the sum awarded to the head of Johan L., their son and brother who died without children, is not disputed in subsidiary title by the appellants. Once the pleas have been rejected as to the principle of compensation for this damage, the judgment on this count should be confirmed.

The appellants made auxiliary requests only for the basis of the estate vocation of Mrs. Ketty L., who they said was not the only child of the late G. LAURENT. It is up to them to provide the courts with the evidence on which they base their claim. The declaratory judgment of death of MG LAURENT was established on request of the Public Prosecutor's office for Mrs. R., Mrs. Ketty L., Mrs. LC, Mr. Jean M., Mrs. M.ouse C., Miss Karina M., Mrs. Michaëlla C., and Miguèle L .. Mrs. Ketty L. for her part produced a certificate of inheritance concerning her vis-à-vis her father. In the absence of any other details relating to the relationship between these third parties in this file, allowing their inheritance vocation and the judgment invoked by the appellants to appear, which does not appear in their exhibits, and which in any event, no has never been notified or even communicated to Mrs. Ketty L. within the framework of this procedure, despite the latter's request in her last submissions, the court has nothing to establish the alleged annoyance between the two decisions and to reform the judgment currently referred to the court.

The appellants will continue to bear the costs of the appeal. Equity demands that they be ordered to pay the respondents compensation of € 1,500 on the basis of the provisions of article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

FOR THESE REASONS

The court, ruling within the limits of its referral; Confirm the judgment referred;

Condemns the appellants to pay Mrs. R. and Mrs. Ketty L. the total sum of 1 500 €, on the basis of articles 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure,;

Order the appellants to pay the costs of the appeal;

Authorizes SELARL MATHURIN BELLIA & ROTSEN

- MEYSENDI to recover directly those costs which it would have advanced without having received a provision.

Signed by Mrs. DERYCKERE, president, and Mrs. SOUNDOROM clerk, during the delivery to which the minute has been postponed.

THE REGISTRAR, THE PRESIDENT,

Composition of the jurisdiction: Ms DERYCKERE, JURISTE & Associés, SELARL Amcor, Alain MANVILLE, SELARL Mathurin Belia & ROTSEN MEYZINDI, Alberte ROTSEN MEYZINDI, Me Alberte ROTSEN MEYZINDI Contested decision: TGI Fort-de-France, Fort-de-France 2009 11-17

***

III. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CIVIL, JUDGMENT N ° 10/00643 (22/12/2012)

THE ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS INSURANCE COMPANY
SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS SA
FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERO

VS/

FORT DE FRANCE COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL ROOM

JUDGMENT OF DECEMBER 14, 2012

Decision referred to the court: Judgment of the High Court of Fort de France, dated September 30, 2008, registered under number 07/118.

CALLERS:

THE ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS INSURANCE COMPANY, taken in its capacity as insurer of the WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS Company, taken in the person of its legal representative
Carera 13 AN ° 29-24 Piso 17 Ala Sur
Bogota fairy bogota (colombia)
represented by Me Alain MANVILLE, of SELARL AMCOR JURISTE & ASSOCIES, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE

SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS SA, company in liquidation. Calle 2, n ° 87-15
Hangar 72 MEDILLIN COLOMBIA
represented by Me Alain MANVILLE, of SELARL AMCOR JURISTE & ASSOCIES, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE
Master FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERA, the quality of the WEST CAIBBEAN AIRWAYS Calle 70 AN ° 6-24 Piso 2 BOGOTA COLOMBIA
represented by Me Alain MANVILLE, of SELARL AMCOR JURISTE & ASSOCIES lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE

RESPONDENTS:

Mrs. Yolaine B., acting both in her own name and as a legal representative of her minor child Guy JB, born on November 24, 1994 at Lamentin Bat 28 - Touloulou Porte 8 97280 VAUCLIN
SELARL MATHURIN BELIA & ROTSEN MEYZINDI, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE
(benefits from Total legal aid number 2010/005780 of 27/01/2011 granted by the legal aid office of FORT DE FRANCE)

Mademoiselle Daniella B Bt 28 - Touloulou Porte 8 97280 LE VAUCLIN
represented by Me Alberte ROTSEN MEYZINDI of SELARL MATHURIN BELIA & ROTSEN MEYZINDI, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE
(benefits from Total legal aid number 2010/005794 of 27/01/2011 granted by the legal aid office of FORT DE FRANCE)

COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:

President: Ms. DERYCKERE, Advisor
Assessor: Ms SUBIETA FORONDA, Advisor
Assessor: Ms TRIOL, Advisor

and the date of delivery of the judgment set for 14 DECEMBER 2012
Registrar: during the debates, Ms SOUNDOROM,

JUDGMENT: contradictory,

FACTS, PROCEDURE, MEANS AND CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES

By judgment of September 30, 2008, the High Court of Fort de France ordered the insurance company ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS to pay in compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the death of Mr. André V. [sic] actually Anicet V. , in the plane crash that occurred on August 16, 2005 in Venezuela:
- to Ms. Yolaine B. in a personal capacity € 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and € 5,000 for economic damage,
- to Mrs B. as legal representative of her children then minors Daniella and Guy J., each € 35,000 in respect of their non-pecuniary damage and € 4,000 in compensation for the hereditary damage caused by the victim's suffering,
- in addition to € 2,000 on the basis of article 700 of the code of civil procedure.

The insurer, and Me Felipe NEGRET MOSQUERA as liquidator of SA WEST CARIBEAN AIRWAYS appealed against the judgment, by declaration of September 30, 2010, only of the convictions pronounced for hereditary harm.

Under their last submissions of March 10, 2011, the respondents, Ms. Yolaine B., acting both in her own name and as the legal representative of her minor son Guy J., and Ms. Daniella B., now of full age, ask the court to confirm the principle of compensation for hereditary suffering in this case, arguing that it is indisputable that in the course of an airplane crash, the passengers felt the imminence of their death with the feeling of panic and helplessness, and the awareness of leaving life before its end. This non-pecuniary damage being born before death, the personal right to compensation entered the patrimony of the victim and was transmitted to his heirs. Given the extraordinary nature of the circumstances of the death, they claim in counterclaim to fix this inheritance damage at the sum of € 35,000 and claim that it has not been shown that MV had more than 5 children as had retained the court.

REASONS

On hereditary harm:

Any victim of damage has the right to obtain compensation from the one who caused it, inheritance right transmissible to his heirs. The reparable damage must be direct and certain, in relation to the harmful event.

The court considers that the court made a fair assessment of the quantum of this liquidated damage in the sum of € 20,000.

On the applicants' estate vocation:

In the alternative, the appellants do not dispute the quality of heirs of Daniella and Guy JB as having been the natural children of the deceased Anicet V., but their hereditary share. They maintain that the latter had 8 children and not 5 as the court held. However, they produced the wrong photocopy of a document at the head of the City of the Holy Spirit, entitled Certificate of Heredity, unsigned, and undated claiming to have been established at the request of Ms. Gabrielle C., wife of MV, and mentioning 6 children who do not all bear the name of the deceased, and without indicating their date of birth. This unofficial and truncated document cannot take the conviction of the court, due in addition to the contradiction which it presents at the same time with the declaratory judgment of death that after investigation the parquet floor of Fort de France required bound for the wife and three legitimate children of MV, and with the judgment rendered by this court which confirmed the authorship of MV on the children of Mrs. B. which was disputed by Mrs. C., herself indicating that the latter had three children.

The part retained by the court in favor of Daniella and Guy JB corresponding to one fifth of the compensation for the hereditary suffering of suffering, ie 4,000 € each will therefore be confirmed.

The appellants will continue to bear the costs of the appeal.

FOR THESE REASONS

The court, ruling within the limits of its referral;

Confirm the judgment referred;

Order the appellants to pay the costs of the appeal;

Authorizes SELARL MATHURIN BELLIA & ROTSEN MEYSENDI to recover directly those costs for which it would have advanced without having received provision.

Signed by Mrs. DERYCKERE, president, and Mrs. SOUNDOROM clerk, during the delivery to which the minute has been postponed.

THE REGISTRAR, THE PRESIDENT,

Composition of the jurisdiction: Mme DERYCKERE, JURISTE & Associés, SELARL Amcor, Alain MANVILLE, SELARL Mathurin Belia & ROTSEN MEYZINDI, Me Alberte ROTSEN MEYZINDI
Contested decision: TGI Fort-de-France, Fort-de-France 2008-09-30

***

IV. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CALENDAR STOP N ° 10/00645 (18/01/2013)

THE ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS INSURANCE COMPANY

SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS SA

FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERO

VS/

FORT DE FRANCE COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL ROOM
JUDGMENT OF JANUARY 18, 2013

Decision referred to the court: Judgment of the judge of the High Court of Fort de France, dated September 30, 2008, registered under n ° 07/1645.

CALLERS:

SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS SA, company in liquidation. Calle 2, n ° 87-15
Hangar 72 MEDILLIN COLOMBIA
represented by Me Alain MANVILLE of SELARL AMCOR JURISTE & ASSOCIES, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE
Master FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERO, he is the liquidator of the WEST CAIBBEAN AIRWAYS Company
Calle 70 AN ° 6-24 Piso 2 BOGOTA COLOMBIA
represented by Me Alain MANVILLE of SELARL AMCOR JURISTE & ASSOCIES, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE

RESPONDENT:

Madame Miguèle L., acting in personam and in her capacity as legal representative of her minor son Grégory Jean Pascal L. Les Hauts de Dillon - Bât. 5 - Gate 4 97200 FORT DE FRANCE
represented by Me Marlène CUPIT, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE
(benefits from Total legal aid number 2011/002870 of 19/07/2011 granted by the legal aid office of FORT DE FRANCE)

COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:

The case was debated on October 26, 2012 at a public hearing, before the court composed of:
Mr. FAU, President of the Chamber,
Ms DERYCKERE, Advisor in charge of the report
M. CHEVRIER, Advisor
who deliberated on it, the parties having been informed of the date of delivery of the judgment fixed at 18 JANUARY 2013.
REGISTRAR: during the debates, Mrs S.,

JUDGMENT: contradictory,

FACTS, PROCEDURE, MEANS AND CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES

By judgment of September 30, 2008, rectified on November 19, 2009, the High Court of Fort de France ordered the insurance company ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS to pay in compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the death of Mr. G. LAURENT and his son Johan L., in the plane crash that occurred on August 16, 2005 in Venezuela, sums for various loss claims, including Ms. Miguèle L. € 43,000 in compensation for moral injury, € 15,000 in compensation for economic loss, and € 5,000 in compensation for hereditary loss suffered by his father G. LAURENT.

The insurer, and Me Felipe NEGRET MOSQUERA in the capacity of liquidator of SA WEST CARIBEAN AIRWAYS, by declaration of September 30, 2010, appealed against the judgment, expressly limited to this chief conviction pronounced for hereditary harm.

By final conclusions dated February 8, 2012, the appellants claim that this damage could not have entered the patrimony of the deceased, passed on to the assigns, the death having been instantaneous, and this damage being in addition hypothetical and therefore not reparable.

In the alternative, they point out that the inheritance loss has been assessed at a flat rate of € 20,000, and that it is up to the plaintiff to demonstrate the extent of its inheritance right, which it does not do by producing a certificate of heredity.

However, the number of heirs is uncertain, since arrested at 4 according to the judgment while another of the same day also rendered by the head of G. LAURENT allocates a sum of € 20,000 to Ketty L. as sole heir this which creates a contradiction in the inheritance devolution of the hereditary indemnity.

According to their last conclusions of November 10, 2001, Ms. Miguèle L., argues on the principle of compensation for hereditary harm caused by suffering in this case, that it is indisputable that in the course of a crash passengers, the plane felt the excruciating pain of seeing themselves die.

This non-pecuniary damage having arisen before death, the personal right to compensation entered the patrimony of the victim and was transmitted to his heirs. As regards the quantum, she argues that she sufficiently demonstrates her quality as heiress, that she does not have to produce a certificate of inheritance, and that the court misjudged the situation by awarding her 5,000 € only. She claims 30,000 € for her. In addition to compensation of € 2,000 under article 37 of the law of July 10, 1991.

REASONS

On the principle of hereditary harm:

In the present case, contrary to what the appellants claim, the fall of the plane is an indisputable fact, which should not have happened under normal flight circumstances.

It is therefore necessary to take into account all of the circumstances of the accident, from the air stall, causing a sudden loss of altitude and depressurization of the cabin, until the final impact.

Consequently, it cannot be argued that the passengers died instantly, which would not take into account the few minutes during which they were necessarily confronted with the terror of the vertigo of the fall, as well as the anxiety and then the certainty of their inexorable death, generators of at least moral suffering, which cannot be described as hypothetical.

The court considers that the court made a fair assessment of the quantum of this liquidated damage in the sum of € 20,000. On the applicant's estate vocation:

It should be noted that the estate vocation of Ms. L. is not criticized as such. She had also been retained by the court in view of the birth certificate of

Mrs. Miguèle L. establishing that she was the daughter of the deceased.

The first judges also calculated his hereditary vocation at the rate of a quarter, in view of the mentions appearing in the defendants' conclusions, citing the three other children of ML, who directly negotiated compensation for their losses with the company of insurance. Ms. Miguèle L. did not contest the hereditary vocation of these co-heirs, and none of the parties provides the court with any document to contradict the assessment of the court. As for the judgment invoked by the appellants, it cannot be set up against the appellant. The court does not have in this case, and contradictorily, any element allowing to note the alleged contradiction between the two decisions and to reform the judgment presently referred to the court.

The appellants will continue to bear the costs of the appeal.

Ms. L., who is receiving legal aid, does not justify the additional costs she would have been forced to pay personally. His request based on article 37 of the law of July 10, 1991 will be rejected.

FOR THESE REASONS

The court, ruling within the limits of its referral,
Confirm the judgment referred,
Rejects the request based on article 37 of the law of July 10, 1991,
Order the appellants to pay the costs of the appeal.
Signed by Mr. FAU, President of the Chamber, and Mrs. RIBAL, Registrar, during the delivery, to which the minute has been postponed. THE REGISTRAR, THE PRESIDENT,

Composition of the jurisdiction: M. FAU, JURISTE & Associés, SELARL Amcor, Alain MANVILLE, Me Marlène CUPIT

Contested decision: TGI Fort-de-France, Fort-de-France 2008-09-30

***

V. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CALENDAR STOP N ° 10/00634 (19/04/2013)

Indemnisation West Carribean Airways : Jugement du TGI de Fort-de-France en date du 30 septembre 2008 (1)

Indemnisation West Carribean Airways : Jugement du TGI de Fort-de-France en date du 30 septembre 2008 (3)

Indemnisation West Carribean Airways : Jugement du TGI de Fort-de-France en date du 30 septembre 2008 (4)

Indemnisation West Carribean Airways : Jugement du TGI de Fort-de-France en date du 30 septembre 2008 (5)

Indemnisation West Carribean Airways : Jugement du TGI de Fort-de-France en date du 30 septembre 2008 (6)

Indemnisation West Carribean Airways : Jugement du TGI de Fort-de-France en date du 30 septembre 2008 (7)

***

VI. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CALENDAR STOP N ° 10/00667 (07/06/2013)

VS/

ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS INSURANCE COMPANY
SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS
FELIPE NM

Judicial litigation JurisData number: 2013-024118

FORT DE FRANCE COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL ROOM
JUDGMENT OF JUNE 07, 2013
Decision referred to the court: Judgment of the High Court of Fort-de-France, dated December 15, 2009, registered under number 07/01725.

CALLING:

Monsieur Henri Augustin G.

represented by Me Laurence HO-L., lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE

(benefits from Total legal aid number 2012/003629 of 18/09/2012 granted by the legal aid office of FORT DE FRANCE)

INTIMES:

ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS INSURANCE COMPANY, taken in the person of its legal representative
represented by Me Alain M., lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE

SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS
represented by Me Alain M., lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE
Maître FELIPE NM, es quality of liquidating agent of the company West Caribbean Airways
represented by Me Alain M., lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE

COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the provisions of articles 786 and 910 of the code of civil procedure, the case was debated at the public hearing of April 12, 2013, the lawyers did not oppose it, before Mrs. DERYCKERE, counselor, in charge of the report . This magistrate reported the pleadings in the deliberations of the court, composed of:
M. LALLEMENT, President of the Chamber
Ms DERYCKERE, Advisor
Ms SUBIETA-FORONDA, Advisor

The parties have been informed of the date of delivery of the judgment set for 07 JUNE 2013
Registrar, during the debates: Ms SOUNDOROM,

JUDGMENT: contradictory,

FACTS, PROCEDURE, MEANS AND CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES

By judgment of December 15, 2009, the High Court of Fort de France ordered the insurance company ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS to pay with provisional execution to Mr. Henri G. in compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the death of his parents, his s 'ur, his niece and nephew, and his brother-in-law, in the plane crash that occurred on August 16, 2005 in Venezuela, various sums in respect of his moral prejudice, hereditary prejudice linked to the sufferings of direct victims, loss of luggage in addition to compensation on the basis of article 700 of the code of civil procedure, and declared the judgment opposable to Me Felipe NM as liquidator of the company West Caribbean Airways (WCA).

By declaration of October 5, 2010, Mr. G. appealed from the judgment.

In her last conclusions of December 7, 2012, Ms. Inna G., her daughter, intervened voluntarily alongside the appellant. In the body of his conclusions he also makes requests on behalf of his minor son Mehdi G ..

According to these latter conclusions, Mr G. asked the court to reconsider his requests for compensation post by post.

M G.:

Points out that the Montreal Convention of May 28, 1999, ratified by France and Colombia alone applicable to the present case, fixes the carrier's objective and automatic liability up to 100,000 SDR per passenger who has died or suffered injuries on board an aircraft either on the date of the judgment 172,948 euros, the carrier being able to, beyond this sum, be relieved of its responsibility by demonstrating that it has not committed negligence or that the damage results from the fault of a third party.
recalls that in this drama, he and his two children lost six members of their family, that it destroys the life of a man, and that he is waiting for the liquidation of his prejudice to be able to mourn.
specifies that at the time of the disaster, he was in the process of divorce and had returned to live with his parents where he received his children on the occasion of visitation and accommodation rights, that the brutal deprivation of support and affection of his closest parents plunged him into a long and lasting depression.
also intends to demonstrate the emotional ties and the community of economic interests uniting him with his brother-in-law, and founding his request for compensation from the head of the latter that the court had refused him.
figures his claim for non-pecuniary damage and affection in the sum of 100,000 euros for the loss of his parents, 80,000 euros for the loss of his sister, 50,000 euros for the loss of his brother-in-law, and 30,000 euros for the loss of his two nephews.
argues that no sum was paid for the prejudice of his children, whose prejudice of affection is undeniable.

Inna G., now an adult, requests 15,000 euros for the loss of her grandparents, 10,000 euros for the loss of her godmother and her uncle and 5,000 euros for the loss of her cousins, a total sum of 60,000 euro and Mr G. asks for his minor son Mehdi an equivalent compensation.

In addition, he requests for himself specific compensation for the psychic trauma he undergoes up to 30,000 euros, and he explains that his traumatic illness caused him dazzling glaucoma with blindness on the left 4 months after the drama, which gives him an IPP of 70% which he claims to repair up to 199,500 euros. For hereditary damage, he seeks 30,000 euros per passenger to whom he succeeds, or 90,000 euros.

He claims compensation for his property damage, drawn from the professional incidence linked to his mental trauma, citing the fact that he has never been able to return to his work, and that he only lives in the HSO for 600 euro per month. He asks for 580,800 euros. Besides 150 350 euro due to the loss of financial support from his parents. He further argues that his parents had started to organize their succession to provide their children with an exemption from inheritance tax, which the accident did not allow to do, namely 60% of the estate assets which represents 349,764 euros. He also claims 2,000 SDRs for the loss of baggage for his nephews, who were entitled to one bag each, or 3,600 euros. In the alternative, he claims compensation for his loss up to 100,000 SDR for the loss of his parents and his sister, and 50,000 SDR for each of his nephews. He also requests 5,000 euros on the basis of article 700 of the code of civil procedure applied to the appeal procedure.

The company ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS and Me Felipe NM in their capacity as liquidator of the company WCA, in their last written responses in response filed on January 10, 2013 conclude with the confirmation of the judgment except on the hereditary prejudice, and the rejection of all the other requests.

According to them, the damage known as suffering victims is not reparable because hypothetical, and could not enter the heritage of the deceased whose death was instantaneous.

Furthermore, in the absence of questioning of his social security organization, on pain of the nullity of this judgment, Mr. G. must be ordered to regularize his procedure, or his claims for compensation for his damage subject to appeal must be rejected.

They do not oppose the late requests for the first time at issue in the appeal by and on behalf of the children of MG, but oppose the children's requests relating to the loss of their cousins for lack of demonstration of '' a special bond of affection that united them.

For the rest, they maintain that the Montreal Convention only repeats the principle of French law of the equivalence of damage to reparation, in order to avoid any unjust enrichment of the victim, and that with regard to this principle the requests for MG are excessive, and not justified both medically, economically or financially.

REASONS

The Montreal Convention of May 28, 1999, the application of which is not disputed in this dispute, provides in its article 17-1 that the carrier is responsible for the damage occurring in the event of death or bodily injury suffered by a passenger, by the mere fact that the accident which caused death or injury occurred on board the aircraft or during boarding or disembarking operations. Article 21 of the agreement specifies that for damage provided for by this provision, and not exceeding 100,000 SDR, the carrier cannot exclude or limit its liability, whereas it is not liable for damage exceeding this value s '' it proves that it is not due to his negligence or other prejudicial act, or that it results from the negligence or other prejudicial act of a third party.

Contrary to the applicant's reading of it, it is not a principle of automatic lump sum compensation with a minimum amount of 100,000 SDRs, but a system of liability based on an irrefutable or simple presumption based on the assessment of the damage suffered. We must therefore first liquidate the damage.

Hereditary harm

It should be recalled that any victim of damage has the right to obtain compensation from the person who caused it. This property right is transferable to his heirs. The reparable damage must be direct and certain, in relation to the harmful event.

In the present case, contrary to what the respondents claim, the fall of the plane is an indisputable fact, which should not have happened under normal flight circumstances.

The court considers that the court made a fair assessment of the quantum of this liquidated damage to the sum of 20,000 euros.

MG does not dispute that he is the heir only of his parents and his sister.

Having justified being the sole heir, his vocation is to collect this liquidated sum at 20,000 euros from each of them, in full. The judgment will be confirmed on this basis.

It should be noted that the compensation for loss of luggage expressly provided for in article 22 of the Montreal Convention compensates for the material damage suffered by passengers, and therefore responds to the same logic drawn from the claimant's estate vocation.

The first judges can only be approved of having granted him the lump sum indemnity of 1000 SDR defined by the convention for each of his parents and for his sister, excluding that of his nephews, for whom it should have been sought whether or not there are successors in the paternal branch, in a direct line or in a collateral line at a rank potentially preferable to his own.

However, it does not demonstrate this. The judgment will be confirmed on this count.

On the prejudice of affection of Mr. Henri G.:

Direct personal harm is certain for the victims by ricochet relating to the brutal uprooting of a loved one from the affection of his loved ones, is liquidated taking into account the circumstances of the accident, the proximity and the links previously maintained between them.

It is perfectly justified by MG, that he lived in his parents' home because of his ongoing divorce proceedings, which reinforces the perception of the emotional and moral support that he received from his parents. It is justified by the united character of this family and the close ties maintained between each member of the family.

It is also justified by the friendship and the community of economic interests which united him to his brother-in-law.

Furthermore, a special assessment must be made of the moral prejudice suffered by MG due to the fact that he left in the tragedy all of his close relatives, his family by blood having been reduced in an instant to his children and him.

The court considers that this head of damage for MG must be repaired up to 60,000 euros for the loss of each of his parents, 30,000 euros for the loss of his sister, 15,000 euros for the loss of each of his nephews, and 8,000 euros for the loss of his brother-in-law.

The judgment will be reformed in this sense.

On the psychological trauma invoked by Mr. G.:

Mr. G. provides a medical certificate dated May 23, 2006, attesting to his post traumatic stress disorder with major depressive episode following the air crash in which he lost his entire family. At the date of the certificate, the practitioner judged his stationary state with persistent anxiety and depressive disorders.

In this case, therefore, the demonstration of what

MG suffers a loss by ricochet distinct from the loss of affection linked to the loss proper of his close relatives in the broad sense, and in direct connection with the air disaster establishing the right to compensation with regard to the carrier. His request will be granted in full, the sum of 30,000 euros being allocated to him from then on. The judgment will be set aside on this point.

On the Injury of affection of Inna and Mehdi G.:

The admissibility of the applications presented on appeal by the latter, not being discussed, it will be indicated on the merits, that the considerations above retained must be repeated for the children of Mr G., whose marital difficulties have not nothing affected the relations between his children and their paternal family.

To this must be added the circumstance that their uncle and aunt were respectively their godfather and godmother, which induces the disappearance of a reference of another order in their life, but perfectly admissible taking into account the dynamics which animated this family, as reflected in the photographs, the letters exchanged and the testimonies.

Finally, the bonds of friendship that existed between the 4 cousins, in this context of the sudden disappearance of their paternal collateral branch, make it possible to found these heads of claim that the respondents contest.

In these conditions, their moral prejudice will be repaired as follows:

For each of them, the loss of their grandparents will be estimated at 15,000 euros each, that of their uncle and aunt, 8,000 euros, that of their cousins, 4,000 euros. It will be added to the judgment of these chiefs.

On the various bodily injury compensation items claimed:

Article 17-1 of the Montreal Convention mentioned above lays down the principle of compensation by the air carrier, for damages such as death and bodily injury produced on board the aircraft. This is not the case with Mr G. The bodily injury which he alleges, namely dazzling closed-angle glaucoma, was not caused by the accident.

According to him, it is only the result of the state of stress, emotion and pain felt due to the loss of his family in the air disaster.

Assuming scientifically proven the link between the traumatic syndrome and the vision pette, it would be a result of the psychic trauma already compensated above, and not of the plane crash itself.

Thus, beyond the procedural irregularity due to the lack of official challenge (see Exhibit 29 amicable appeal letter in declaration of joint judgment) of its social security organization and other possible third-party payers, this is the very foundation of his right to compensation which is lacking in this case.

His claims for compensation for a permanent functional deficit and its professional impact will therefore be rejected.

On material damage:

It is up to Mr. G. to demonstrate the existence of economic damage directly related to the death of his parents.

If it is not disputed that he lived at the domicile of the latter, it is just as constant that he had his own income, which he figures at 2,200 euro per month, and which he himself qualifies in his conclusions of corrects, so that he cannot claim as he presents in his calculation of loss of income, the status of a dependent child to whom we would recognize a share of consumption of 15% of the income of his parents.

Mathematically, if one takes into account one's own income in determining the annual household resources, one's share of consumption of 15% is absorbed entirely in one's own contribution, so that there is no justification for a loss in the income of missing relatives, from whom he also inherited the heritage.

The rejection of this request by the first judges can only be confirmed.

Regarding the exemption from inheritance tax, he only pays a letter from his parents dated May 2, 2005, explaining to their children that they plan to transmit their real estate through an SCI.

However, the chances of realization of this legal arrangement in the absence of any other preparatory act remain hypothetical but no study is provided on the expected tax benefit of the transaction, nor the justification for the calculation of inheritance tax by tranches, or their rate indicated at 60% for a direct descendant.

Besides, there is no justification for the liquidation of the succession and the rights.

The only justification for material damage is the sum of 5,416.27 euros remaining payable by Mr G. in respect of the acquisition of a funeral concession in equal parts with Mr M., the father of his stepson. brother.

In this state of the supporting documents provided, the claim for pecuniary damage will be allowed up to a sum rounded up to 5,500 euros.

In the end, the damage thus liquidated being less than the equivalent of 100,000 SDR per passenger, the transporter duly insured and guaranteed by the company ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS, must compensate him without the possibility of exemption, which is not incidentally not requested by the respondents.

Consequently, the subsidiary claim to round up compensation to 100,000 SDR per missing passenger has no basis in the Montreal Convention.

The costs will be borne by the respondents and equity will order to allocate a sum of 5,000 euros on the basis of article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the costs incurred in the appeal.

FOR THESE REASONS

Confirms the judgment referred except in its provisions relating to the loss of affection of Mr G., and to the separate damage linked to mental trauma;

Ruling again and adding to it;

Orders the insurance company ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS to pay to Mr G. the sums of:
- 60,000 euros for the loss of Mrs. Eugénie G.,
- 60,000 euro for the loss of M Joseph G.,
- 30,000 euro for the loss of Mrs. Murielle G. marries M.,
- 15,000 euro for the loss of Nicolas M.,
- 15,000 euro for the loss of Maëva M.,
- 8,000 euros for the loss of Mr. Max M.,
- 30,000 euros for separate mental trauma,
- 5,500 euros in respect of pecuniary damage,

Condemns the insurance company ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS to pay to Mr G. as legal representative of his minor son Mehdi G., the sums of:
- 15,000 euros for the loss of his grandmother Eugénie G.,
- 15,000 euros for the loss of his grandfather Joseph G.,
- 8,000 euro for the loss of his uncle Max M.,
- 8,000 euro for the loss of his aunt Murielle M.,
- 4,000 euros for the loss of his cousin Nicolas,
- 4,000 euros for the loss of his cousin Maëva,

Condemns the insurance company ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS to pay to Miss Inna G. the sums of:
- 15,000 euros for the loss of his grandmother Eugénie G.,
- 15,000 euros for the loss of his grandfather Joseph G.,
- 8,000 euro for the loss of his uncle Max M.,
- 8,000 euro for the loss of his aunt Murielle M.,
- 4,000 euros for the loss of his cousin Nicolas,
- 4,000 euros for the loss of his cousin Maëva,

Holds that all of the allowances awarded in appeal will generate interest at the legal rate as of this judgment,

Condemns the insurance company ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS to pay to Mr G. the sum of 5000 euro on the basis of the provisions of article 700 of the code of civil procedure,

Reject excess requests,

Declares the present judgment enforceable against Me Felipe NM as liquidator of the company West Caribbean Airways,

Orders ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS to pay the costs of the appeal.

Signed by Mr. LALLEMENT, President of the Chamber, and Ms. RIBAL, Registrar, when the minute was postponed.

THE REGISTRAR, THE PRESIDENT,

***

VII. CA PARIS POLE 2, ROOM 2, STOP N ° 13/04044 (19/12/2014)

Large deliveries FRENCH REPUBLIC

to the parties on: ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE

COURT OF APPEAL FOR PARIS

Pole 2 - Bedroom 2

Registration number in the general directory: 13/04044

Judicial litigation

Decision referred to the Court: Judgment of January 11, 2013 -Tribunal de Grande Instance de Bobigny - RG n ° 11/06160

APPELLANTS

Madame Victoire by Jolie K.

Represented by Me Kenneth W. of SELARL W., lawyer at the bar of PARIS, toque: P0046

Mrs. Annie-Aurélie K.

Represented by Me Kenneth W. of SELARL W., lawyer at the bar of PARIS, toque: P0046

respondents

AIR FRANCE company taken in the person of its legal representative

Represented by Me Jacques B., lawyer at the PARIS bar, toque: G0334

Assisted by Me Benjamin P., lawyer at the bar of PARIS, toque: P429

KENYA AIRWAYS Company (having its establishment in […]) taken in the person of its legal representative

Represented by Me Jacques B., lawyer at the PARIS bar, toque: G0334

Assisted by Me Benjamin P., lawyer at the bar of PARIS, toque: P429

COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the provisions of articles 786 and 907 of the code of civil procedure, the case was debated on November 14, 2014, in public hearing, the lawyers not having opposed it, in front of Mrs Anne VIDAL,
president of the chamber, responsible for examining the file.

A report was presented at the hearing under the conditions of article 785 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

This magistrate reported on the pleadings in the deliberations of the Court, composed of:

- Mrs. Anne VIDAL,
chamber president

- Mrs. Marie-Sophie RICHARD,
advisor

- Mrs. Isabelle CHESNOT,
advisor

Registrar, during the debates: Mr. Guillaume LE FORESTIER

STOP:

- contradictory

- by making the judgment available at the Court registry, the parties having been informed thereof in advance under the conditions provided for in the second paragraph of article 450 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

- signed by Mrs. Anne VIDAL,

chamber president

and by

Mr. Guillaume LE FORESTIER, clerk to whom the minute of the decision was handed over by the signatory magistrate.

****

FACTS, PROCEDURE AND CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES:

Thérèse N. wife K., residing in Douala (Cameroon) bought at the Air France counter in this city a round-trip air ticket between Douala and Guangzhou (China) with departure on May 5, 2007 and stopover in Nairobi (Kenya) by paying the ticket price in part with miles from his “Flying Blue” card. The plane, a Boeing 737-800 belonging to the company Kenya Airways, crashed a few minutes after takeoff leaving no survivors.

According to acts of bailiff dated April 22 and 23, 2009, Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K., daughters of the victim, had the company Air France, the company Boeing, summoned before the High Court of Bobigny Company and Kenya Airways, as well as CFM International, Thalès Group and Thalès Avionic in compensation for their losses.

By judgment dated January 12, 2011, the Paris Court of Appeal, ruling on the appeal of an order from the Pre-Trial Judge, noted the plaintiffs' withdrawal from the companies Thalès Group and Thalès Avionic and declared the Bobigny tribunal de grande instance competent, holding that the company Air France had intervened as a contractual carrier within the meaning of the Montreal Convention and the company Kenya Airways as a de facto carrier.

By order of March 22, 2012, the pre-trial judge declared perfect the withdrawal of the plaintiffs against the companies CFM International and Boeing Company and the proceedings therefore continued against only the company Air France and Kenya Airways.

Ms. Victoire K. and Ms. Anne-Aurélie K. requested the joint condemnation of Air France and Kenya Airways to pay them various sums as damages in compensation for their losses, arguing that the question of quality of transporter of these two companies had already been decided, that the investigation report had highlighted a manifest fault of piloting and that they were the only heirs of Marie-Thérèse N. wife K.

By judgment dated 11 January 2013, the Bobigny tribunal de grande instance declared the company Air France and the company Kenya Airways responsible towards Thérèse N. wife K. for the harmful consequences of the aircraft accident which occurred May 5, 2007, considering that the judgment of the court of appeal of January 12, 2011 had no authority of res judicata except on the competence but retaining that the company Air France did indeed have the quality of contractual carrier.

He condemned them in solidum to repair the entire damage, without applying the limits of guarantee of the Montreal Convention because of the absence of exonerating causes and in the light of the results of the investigation concluding to the faults of piloting, and to pay Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K. the sum of 25,000 euros each for non-pecuniary damage, that of 15,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage to the victim, that of 1,438.81 euros for costs funeral and transport and an amount equivalent to 1,000 special drawing rights (SDR) in force on the date of its decision in respect of the loss of luggage and personal effects.

He dismissed Mme Victoire K. and Mme Anne-Aurélie K. for the remainder of their claims, with the exception of the sum of 5,000 euros in application of the provisions of article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Ms. Victoire K. and Ms. Anne-Aurélie K. appealed this decision following a declaration dated February 27, 2013.

By ordinance dated October 17, 2013, the adviser on the readiness ordered the provisional execution of the sentences pronounced by the court against the only company Kenya Airways for the benefit of Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K. but rejected their request for payment of a provision ad litem.

——————–

Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K., according to their last submissions served on November 4, 2014, ask the court to:

Confirm the decision referred in that it declared the company Air France and the company Kenya Airways responsible for the harmful consequences of the accident which occurred on May 5, 2007 with regard to Thérèse N. wife K.,

Reform it on the quantum of compensation allocated and jointly condemn Air France and Kenya Airways to pay them the following sums:

In respect of non-pecuniary damage,
the sum of 50,000 euros each,
In respect of the material damage to the victim,
the sum of 19,710 euro,
In respect of the moral prejudice of the victim,
the sum of 70,000 euro,
For funeral, travel and subsistence expenses,
the sum of 20,000 euro,
In respect of the loss of life expectancy of the victim,
the sum of 150,000 euro,
In respect of the loss of aid and subsidies for the girls,
the sum of 100,000 euros,
In respect of the damage resulting from the loss of value of the business or, in the alternative, in respect of the loss of chance for his heiresses to receive a larger heritage,
the sum of 256,551 euros,
For the loss of luggage, to be distributed among the beneficiaries,
the equivalent in euros on the day of the decision of 1000 SDR,
As irreparable costs incurred at first instance,
the sum of 83,047.75 euros,

Order Air France and Kenya Airways to pay them a sum of 25,000 euros in application of the provisions of article 700 of the code of civil procedure in question of appeal.

They make the following argument:

On the responsibility of Air France as a contractual carrier: two decisions retained this quality, the judgment of the court of January 12, 2011 having res judicata and the judgment of the tribunal de grande instance of Bobigny of January 11, 2013 considering that the only contractual document provided was an Air France document mentioning the issue by Air France, the SKYTEAM reference and the flight conditions without mentioning the IATA and MITA conditions, so that the buyer had not been informed of the alleged quality of Air France, namely as an agent for the company Kenya Airways;

On the liability of carriers and full compensation: it is indisputable in application of article 17 paragraph 1 of the Montreal Convention and article 21 2 ° which provides that the carrier is not liable for damage to- more than 100,000 SDRs if it proves that they are not due to negligence or to a harmful act or omission of the transporter, his servants or his agents; however, in light of the conclusions of the investigation report, the crew lost control of the aircraft due to improper control of operations, lack of coordination between crew members, non-compliance flight monitoring procedures and confusion in the use of the autopilot, in addition to take-off without authorization from the control tower, and the company Kenya Airways was aware of the captain's shortcomings in his performance; compensation must therefore be total and without limit;

On the plaintiffs' standing to act: they act as heirs to Thérèse N. wife K. (daughters of the deceased) in reparation for the latter's damages and in a personal capacity in compensation for their own prejudices;

On the prejudices of Thérèse N. wife K.: it is necessary to repair the moral prejudice born from the extreme anguish of the passenger after takeoff and the suffering undergone between the moment of the crash of the aircraft and the presumed death to have intervened only at the time of the discovery of the plane, 40 hours later; The loss of life expectancy which constitutes a separate damage must also be repaired, taking into account the age of the victim (52 years) and his life expectancy for another 25 years on the basis of 6,000 euros per year; the material damage is constituted by the loss of the cash which the victim had taken for his business in China, estimated at 19,710 euros, and by the loss of value of his business calculated by a firm of experts on the base of the last three years;

On the applicants' own damage: they claim compensation for their non-pecuniary damage (which must integrate the collective dimension of the disaster, the difficulties in identifying the body and the time required to repatriate the remains), funeral and travel expenses and stays there, the loss of help and subsidies from which they benefited from their mother, Victoire was still a student in Germany at the time of death, and the loss of opportunity to receive a larger inheritance (if the court did not not retain loss of goodwill); they indicate in this regard that they are the only legitimate heiresses of their father, who died in 2011, that they are therefore entitled to 58% from him from the community on the business and that in view of the consistency of the common heritage spouses, they must be allocated all of the compensation as a provision on their part;

On the costs incurred: they are justified by the invoices of lawyers including research and travel to determine responsibilities and account must be taken of the patrimonial situation of the plaintiffs, one nurse in Belgium, the other computer scientist in Germany, on maternity leave.

The company Air France and the company Kenya Airways, in the state of their last writings served on October 3, 2014, conclude, on the responsibility, the reversal of the judgment in that it retained the responsibility of the company Air France and to the exclusion of the latter and on the compensation, to its partial reversal, asking the court, to:

Reform the judgment in that it has allocated the sum of 15,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the victim and reject this request,

Confirm the judgment in that it applied the ceiling of 1000 SDR for compensation for the material damage of the victim,

Confirm it in that he dismissed the claim for loss of survivorship,

Confirm it on the funeral costs,

Reduce the claim for moral prejudice to the two daughters of Thérèse N. wife K.,

Confirm the judgment in that he rejected their requests for loss of assistance and subsidies,

Confirm it in that he rejected the claims for the weakening of the victim's patrimony and the loss of opportunity to receive a larger inheritance,

Reject the claim for loss of value of the business and, in the alternative, say that the fund had a value of 127,000 euros and that the lost chance does not exceed 15% and say that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim that half the lost value,

Convict in solidum Ms. Victoire K. and Ms. Anne-Aurélie K. to pay them the sum of 5,000 euros in application of the provisions of article 700 of the code of civil procedure and reject their request on this basis both with regard to the Air France company than Kenya Airways company.

They essentially put forward the following pleas and arguments:

On the responsibility of the company Air France: the plaintiffs sought its responsibility to validate the competence of the French jurisdictions but formulate grievances only against the company Kenya Airways; the court was right to hold that the judgment of the court had no res judicata, its device containing no provision on the status of contractual carrier of the company Air France; the only conclusive document is the electronic ticket itself and its mentions that Air France is only the issuer while the contractual and de facto carrier is the company Kenya Airways (mention "carrier: KQ" and flight number " KQ507 "); even if the ticket was issued as part of the Flying Blue loyalty program, the partner's general conditions apply, therefore those of Kenya Airways which is necessarily the contractual carrier; the document given after the accident to consorts K. and constituting their document n ° 1 is not relevant to assess the belief of Thérèse N. wife K. in the quality of carrier of Air France and the fact that he had been printed on Air France paper support is not conclusive;

On the estate action of Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K.: the plaintiffs do not justify the possession of cash by Thérèse N. wife K., in the alternative it is necessary to apply article 22 of the Montreal Convention and limit repair to 1,000 SDR; the moral damage of the victim must be rejected because of the suddenness of the accident and the instant death of the latter, the personal damage not being therefore born in the patrimony of the deceased at the time of his death; the loss of chance of survival loss only occurs when the victim has not received the care necessary for his condition, but the suddenness of the accident makes it possible to rule out this head of damage;

On the plaintiffs' prejudices: the claim for loss of assistance and subsidies must be rejected if the plaintiffs (aged 24 and 36 at the time of death) fail to demonstrate that their mother continued to support them financially ; the damage called weakening of the patrimony or loss of value of the goodwill is not compensable because it is purely hypothetical in that it amounts to speculating on the evolution of the patrimony of the victim and on the date of his "natural death" ", It being recalled that the heirs have no acquired right over the patrimony of their parent which the latter has freely; moreover, the expert report produced is not conclusive, in the absence of knowledge of the attempts to resell the fund or its assets, and in the absence of determination of the elements of the local context influencing its Evaluation ; in the alternative, the respondents produced an ML report which concluded that the fund could be estimated at the sum of 127,000 euros and the appellants could claim only half the value of the fund which was part of the community of the K. spouses who is not liquidated;

Costs: they are exorbitant when the case does not present any particular difficulty since the objective liability of the company Kenya Airways has never been disputed; in addition, the respondents proposed a transactional offer after the judgment in the amount of 95,000 euros, greater than the sums awarded by the court.

The proceedings were terminated by ordinance dated November 14, 2014.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

On the responsibility of the company Air France as a contractual carrier:

Considering that in application of the combined provisions of articles of articles 77 and 95 of the code of civil procedure, it is only when the judge has, by ruling on jurisdiction, decided in the operative part of the judgment the substantive question on which this jurisdiction that its decision has the force of res judicata on the merits;

1. In the present case, the Court of Appeal, in its judgment of 12 January 2011, overturned the order of the pre-trial judge having declared the French courts internationally incompetent, and declared the Bobigny tribunal de grande instance competent to rule on the claims presented by Ms. Victoire K. and Ms. Anne-Aurélie K.;

2. that, of course, in arriving at this decision, it considered that, if the company Kenya Airways had the status of de facto carrier, the company Air France had the status of contractual carrier, which justified the choice of the plaintiffs, on the basis of article 42 of the code of civil procedure, to summon the defendants before the high court of the place of the registered office of the contractual carrier; but that this consideration not having been included in the system does not benefit from the authority of res judicata attached to the decision;

Considering that:

Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K. maintain that the company Air France has the quality of contractual carrier within the meaning of article 39 of the Montreal Convention while the company Kenya Airways has that of de facto carrier, the first having sold the ticket to Thérèse N. married K. and concluded the transport contract with her, whereas it was the second who made the flight;
they produced in the proceedings to convince the court, as they convinced the first judges, the electronic ticket which was published by the company Air France, after the accident, on an Air France boarding pass form and which includes a ticket number 05721145889336 whose code 057 corresponds to the company Air France;
the court held that this electronic ticket constituted the contractual document binding the parties and that the company Air France was the contractual carrier for having sold the ticket which had been paid, at least in part, by loyalty points from the Flying Blue program and carried the Skyteam reference, and that it made no reference to the IATA (Air Transport Association) conditions or to the MITA (Multilateral Interline Traffic Agreements) binding the companies together and which would have enabled the purchaser of the ticket to oppose 'Air France only acted as an agent for Kenya Airways;
it is clear that, if the "ticket" produced by the beneficiaries of Thérèse N. wife K. includes the words "Air France" it is because of the simple fact that it was published, a posteriori, on a boarding pass for that company when it was actually an electronic ticket that did not contain these particulars;
it cannot therefore be taken as an argument from this "ticket" to maintain that Thérèse N. wife K. could legitimately think of traveling with Air France;
the electronic ticket mentions that it is issued (issued by) by Air France (its number can therefore only start with the code 057) but that it clearly indicates that the transport is carried out by the company Kenya Airways (carrier: KQ) on a regular flight (KG 0507);
its price was paid by the use of loyalty points from the Flying Blue program which allows the traveler to use the Flying Blue Miles accumulated on the flights of each of the Sky Team Alliance companies to board the flights of these companies , among which is Air France and Kenya Airways;
the use by Thérèse N. wife K. of her Flying Blue loyalty points is therefore not a determining factor in the quality of Air France's contractual carrier, as is the mention "Sky Team" on the ticket;
certainly, the electronic ticket does not refer to the IATA and MITA agreements - which led the court to consider that the company Air France could not claim the status of agent of the carrier whose services were sold - but that it was issued in execution of the loyalty program, the conditions of which are perfectly enforceable against Thérèse N. wife K. and which provide that the premiums and benefits obtained are subject to the general conditions of the partner providing them;
Thérèse N. wife K. knew therefore perfectly that she acquired from the Air France counter in Douala an Award ticket on a flight carried out by the company Kenya Airways and meeting the general conditions of this carrier;
it is also interesting to note in this regard that all the Flying Blue Miles acquired by Thérèse N. wife K. had been purchased on Kenya Airways flights from or to Douala;
it should therefore be considered that the issue by the company Air France of a ticket on a Kenya AIRWAYS flight issued in execution of the Flying Blue program does not allow it to retain its status as a contractual carrier;
the judgment will therefore be reformed in that it held that the responsibility of the company Air France was engaged;

On the responsibility of the company Kenya Airways and the compensation for the damages suffered:

Considering that under the terms of article 17.1 of the Montreal Convention, the carrier is responsible for the damage occurred in the event of death or bodily injury suffered by a passenger by that alone as the accident which caused the death or the injury occurred on board the aircraft or during any embarkation or disembarkation operation; that article 21.1 provides that the carrier cannot exclude or limit its liability for damage not exceeding 100,000 special drawing rights per passenger and that article 21.2 adds that it is not liable for damage exceeding 100,000 rights special drawing if it proves that the damage is not due to negligence or to another prejudicial act or omission of the carrier, its servants or its agents, or that the damage results solely from negligence or from a other harmful act or omission of a third party;

That the court rightly noted that the death of Thérèse N. wife K. had occurred during the flight KQ 0507 of the company Kenya Airways and that this company did not oppose any cause of exemption within the meaning of article 21.2 likely to '' exclude or limit its warranty; that it will therefore be confirmed in that it condemned the company Kenya Airways to repair the entire damage suffered as a result of the death of the victim, without any limitation of amount;

Considering that article 22.2 of the Montreal Convention also provides that, in the carriage of luggage, the carrier's liability in the event of destruction, loss, damage or delay, is limited to the sum of 1000 special drawing rights (SDRs) ) per passenger, unless a special declaration of interest in delivery made by the passenger when handing over checked baggage; that the company Kenya Airways will therefore be condemned to repair the material damage suffered by the victim, subject to justification, within the limit of this ceiling, failing a special declaration on boarding;

Considering that Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K. are admissible to act in reparation as well for their personal prejudices because of the death of their mother, as for those undergone by this one before her death and entered in her inheritance, in their status as beneficiaries evidenced by the act of notoriety produced during the proceedings;

1- On the prejudices of Thérèse N. wife K.:

Non-pecuniary damage:

Considering that it appears from the technical investigation report on the accident that:

the plane crashed very quickly after take-off since it took off at 12:06 am and it crashed at 12:07 am;
the fact remains that the passengers perceived the extremely dangerous situation in which they found themselves because of the very bad weather which had forced the pilot to postpone the departure, initially scheduled at 11 p.m.,
and especially because of the roll movements and tilt angles undergone by the device and making fear the worst (roll to the right, then to the left, then again to the right with tilt angle at 55 ° towards the right at 0:07:28, reaching 70 ° at 0:07:29 and 115 ° at 0:07:35) in the context of a very violent thunderstorm, followed by a dive fall of 2800 feet in a few seconds;
it is indisputable that in these few moments, the passengers were aware of the inevitable nature of the crash that was going to take place and of their imminent death;
this resulted for them, and in particular for Thérèse N. wife K., non-pecuniary damage which must receive compensation and which necessarily entered into her patrimony before her death;
this damage was rightly assessed by the court at the sum of 15,000 euros and that it was in vain that the appellants asked for the increase by invoking the existence of physical suffering before death which is not demonstrated
and which cannot be accepted, the death can only have been immediate taking into account the conditions in which the plane crashed on the ground and the findings of the technical investigation holding that the impact occurred at high speed;

Loss of life expectancy:

Considering that the court rightly rejected any compensation for a loss of chance related to the life expectancy of the victim by holding that the latter could not avail themselves of the right to live until a determined age, taking into account the vagaries and accidents in life as well as fluctuations in the state of health of each prohibiting the existence of an acquired right entered into the heritage of the victim during his lifetime and transmissible to his heirs when his death occurs; that the only reparable damage in respect of the loss of life expectancy is that born from the awareness felt by the victim, before his death, of the abridged nature of his life due to the accident or the fault of a third, that is to say the moral prejudice linked to the awareness of the imminence of his death, already repaired in the context of the moral prejudice assessed above; that if the notion of loss of chance of survival has been evoked in case law, it is because of the loss of chance that a victim may suffer, in matters of medical liability, of surviving his affection, due to a fault of the health professional, but that it is never a question of compensating the victim for the loss of an acquired right to live;

Material damage:

Considering that Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K. produce a certificate from MGK certifying that Thérèse N. marries K., a trader at the central market of Douala, actively participated in the tontine (form of savings agreement between people placing their money in common) of which he is the president and that she had withdrawn on April 6, 2007 a sum of ten million CFA francs (that is to say a sum of 14,600 euro) to make its purchases in China, as with each of its voyages d 'business; that this attestation is confirmed by a witness, MK, also a member of the tontine;

That the appellants also communicate an extract from a bank account which shows that their mother had also withdrawn, on April 4, 2007, the sum of 3,500,000 CFA francs in cash from the bank, which represents a sum of the order of 5.110 euro;

That if it is not possible to know precisely what was the sum that Thérèse N. wife K. had taken in her personal effects to carry out her business in China, it emerges from these documents that she was carrying relatively large funds in cash, but that she had made no specific declaration to the company; that therefore it is right that the court has applied the provisions of Article 22.2 of the Montreal Convention and ordered the company Kenya Airways to compensate the victim up to the sum of 1000 SDR;

Loss of goodwill:

Considering that it is in vain that Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K. claim, within the framework of their inheritance action as coming to the rights of Thérèse N. wife K., the reparation of the financial damage resulting from the loss of the victim's business, the alleged disappearance of this fund being only the consequence of the death and therefore having occurred after the death, so that the resulting damage has not entered the patrimony of the deceased ;

2- On the own damages of the two appellants:

Non-pecuniary damage:

Considering that the court rightly assessed this position of prejudice by holding that the plaintiffs, aged 36 and 24, had not lived with the victim for several years since they resided in Belgium and Germany where one exercised the nursing profession while the other was still a student but taking into consideration the particular circumstances of the disappearance of their mother due to its dimension of collective disaster, waiting for the family after the announcement of the accident until '' to the discovery of the remains of the plane and the identification of the bodies, to the geographic distance of the two girls, to the delays in repatriating the body and to the anxiety linked to the ignorance, for several years, of the conclusions of the technical investigation and the reasons for the accident; that the fixing of the compensation at the sum of 25,000 euro for each of them takes into account all of these elements and will be confirmed;

Economic damage:

Considering that the court accepted as justified only the sum of 1,438.81 euros corresponding to the total of the two plane tickets produced at the hearings, one in the name of Xavier G. between May 17 and May 24, 2007, the another on behalf of Annie-Aurélie between October 25 and November 9, 2007; that, admittedly, the appellants did not produce supporting documents for the other trips they made between Paris or Brussels and Douala, but that it appeared from the testimony that they had traveled to Cameroon three times, in the immediate aftermath of the accident in May 2007, then during the body lifting in late October 2007 and the funeral in January 2008; that they should be compensated for these costs by allocating them the sum of 5,000 euros;

Loss of aid and subsidies:

Considering that if Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K., then aged 36, was practicing the nursing profession in Belgium at the time of the death of her mother and does not justify having received from the latter assistance and subsidies, it is different from the second daughter of the victim, Ms. Victoire K. who, aged 24, was still a computer student in Germany and who justifies, by producing the MTK certificate, that her mother sent her, on an ad hoc basis, a financial aid in the range of 4,500 to 6,000 euros; that it is however necessary to note that nothing indicates, in this certificate, the frequency of these aids and that it appears that Mrs. Victoire K. finished her studies in 2008; that it is therefore appropriate to fix at the sum of 15,000 euro the amount of economic damage resulting for her from the loss of her mother's aid during the end of her studies; that the request of Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K. on this count will on the other hand be rejected;

Loss of chance of receiving a larger inheritance:

Considering that Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K. claim, in the absence of compensation for the loss of goodwill within the framework of the succession action, compensation for the damage resulting for them from the weakening of the patrimony which they inherited due to the disappearance of their mother's business; that they produce during the debates an accounting report from the CSA firm to Levallois Perret who, in the light of the accounting documents produced, estimated the economic value of the business operated by Thérèse N. wife K. at 256,551 euro and they claim compensation their prejudice up to this sum;

That it should however be considered, on the one hand that the heirs do not have an acquired right on the inheritance of their author who freely disposes of it and whose content and value are liable to change in gain or loss throughout his life and until his death, on the other hand that the appellants do not justify the future of their mother's business after the accident, providing no information on the possible resale of the fund or its assets, right to the lease and stocks, whereas it appears from the judgment of the court of first instance of Douala of October 15, 2007 that Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K. had been appointed administrator of the goods of the inheritance, including the business of the deceased whose inventory was planned;

That Ms. Victoire K. and Ms. Anne-Aurélie K. will therefore be dismissed from their request on this account;

On the request made under article 700 of the code of civil procedure:

Considering that under the terms of article 700 of the code of civil procedure, the judge condemns the part held with costs to pay to the other part the sum which it determines with respect to the costs exposed and not included in costs, in taking into account the equity or the economic situation of the condemned party; that among these costs, called irreparable, are the fees of lawyers and amicable experts;

That Ms. Victoire K. and Ms. Anne-Aurélie K. report lawyers' bills paid up to 5,000 euros in May 2007 and 71,985 euros between June 2007 and January 2012 corresponding to the first instance, then a note d fees of 5,474 euro for the period from January to October 2013 and a provision of 25,000 euro in December 2013 corresponding to the call, finally a note of fees from the firm W., lawyer to the council, in the amount of 3,588 euro ; that they also produce a bill of fees from the CSA firm in the amount of 1,800 euros;

That it does not belong to the jurisdiction to make any assessment whatsoever on the amount of the lawyer fees invoiced, any disputes and complaints on this count falling within the provisions of articles 175 and following of the decree of November 27, 1991, but that it is up to him, independently of the invoices produced, to assess, in the light of the costs justified by the necessities of the case and in consideration of the elements of fairness, the amount of compensation charged to the unsuccessful party;

That it is necessary to fix this indemnity at the sum of 15,000 euros at first instance and that of 10,000 euros at appeal;

Considering article 696 of the code of civil procedure,

FOR THESE REASONS,

Ruling publicly, contradictorily,

Invalidates the judgment referred in that it declared the company Air France responsible for the harmful consequences of the aircraft accident which occurred on May 5, 2007 which caused the death of Thérèse N. wife K. and in that he condemned the payment of various sums as damages, indemnities and costs, and removes the company Air France;

The defendant in that he dismissed Mrs Victoire K. of her claim for compensation for loss of assistance and subsidies and in that he limited the amount of economic damage to the sum of 1,538.81 euros resulting from funeral, travel and subsistence expenses and, ruling again on these points, orders Kenya Airways to pay:

To Ms Victoire K., in a personal capacity, the sum of 15,000 euros in compensation for the damage resulting from the loss of financial assistance from her mother during the end of her studies,

To Ms. Victoire K. and Ms. Anne-Aurélie K. together, the sum of 5,000 euros for funeral, travel and subsistence expenses;

He also invalidates the quantum of compensation awarded in application of the provisions of article 700 of the code of civil procedure and orders the company Kenya Airways to pay to Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K. together a sum of 15,000 euros in application of the provisions of article 700 of the code of civil procedure for the first instance;

Confirms this for the remainder of its provisions;

Adding to it,

Condemns the company Kenya Airways to pay to Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K. the sum of 10,000 euros in application of the provisions of article 700 of the code of civil procedure in question of appeal;

Orders her to pay the appeal costs which will be recovered under the conditions of article 699 of the code of civil procedure.

THE CLERK THE PRESIDENT

West Carribean Airways (Fr) compensation

West Carribean Airways (Fr) compensation

SUMMARY

I. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CALENDAR STOP N ° 10/00341 (22/06/2012)

CALLERS:

COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:

PRESENTATION OF THE LITIGATION:

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:

II. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CIVIL, JUDGMENT N ° 10/00341 (12/22/2012)

CALLERS:

RESPONDENTS:

COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:

FACTS, PROCEDURE, MEANS AND CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES

REASONS

On hereditary harm:

On the applicants' estate vocation:

FOR THESE REASONS

III. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CIVIL, JUDGMENT N ° 10/00643 (22/12/2012)

CALLERS:

RESPONDENTS:

COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:

JUDGMENT: contradictory,

FACTS, PROCEDURE, MEANS AND CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES

REASONS

On hereditary harm:

On the applicants' estate vocation:

FOR THESE REASONS

IV. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CALENDAR STOP N ° 10/00645 (18/01/2013)

CALLERS:

RESPONDENT:

COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:

JUDGMENT: contradictory,

FACTS, PROCEDURE, MEANS AND CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES

REASONS

On the principle of hereditary harm:

FOR THESE REASONS

V. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CALENDAR STOP N ° 10/00634 (19/04/2013)

VI. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CALENDAR STOP N ° 10/00667 (07/06/2013)

INTIMES:

COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:

JUDGMENT: contradictory,

FACTS, PROCEDURE, MEANS AND CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES

REASONS

Hereditary harm

On the prejudice of affection of Mr. Henri G.:

On the psychological trauma invoked by Mr. G.:

In this case, therefore, the demonstration of what

On the Injury of affection of Inna and Mehdi G.:

On the various bodily injury compensation items claimed:

On material damage:

FOR THESE REASONS

Ruling again and adding to it;

VII. CA PARIS POLE 2, ROOM 2, STOP N ° 13/04044 (19/12/2014)

APPELLANTS

respondents

COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:

STOP:

FACTS, PROCEDURE AND CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES:

REASONS FOR DECISION:

On the responsibility of the company Air France as a contractual carrier:

On the responsibility of the company Kenya Airways and the compensation for the damages suffered:

1- On the prejudices of Thérèse N. wife K.:

Non-pecuniary damage:

Loss of life expectancy:

Material damage:

Loss of goodwill:

2- On the own damages of the two appellants:

Non-pecuniary damage:

Economic damage:

Loss of aid and subsidies:

Loss of chance of receiving a larger inheritance:

On the request made under article 700 of the code of civil procedure:

FOR THESE REASONS,

Related Posts

West Carribean Airways (Fr) compensation

Request for damages awarded to victims of Chinese nationality in the Air France AF447 crash of June 1, 2009 (Fr)

Investigation of the damages paid to the Chinese victims of the KQ 507 crash of Kenya Airways on May 4, 2007 (Fr)